Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole

Four months ago, Andrea Rossi demonstrated what he claims was a one-megawatt
"Energy Catalyser" -- or E-Cat -- which produces power by cold
fusion. This technology, also known as Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
(LENR), had been consigned to the deepest cellar of fringe
science.

Now it's hammering on the cellar door, and Nasa, MIT, Darpa and
Cern are among those peering through the keyhole, wondering if it
should be allowed back in with respectable science. As part of
Wired.co.uk's continued coverage of progress in this controversial
field, we have investigated recent developments.

Nasa
Nasa has started giving very mixed signals on cold fusion. After
years of silence on the issue, a piece appeared on its website
stating that LENR tests carried out at Nasa's
Glenn Research Centre "consistently show evidence of
anomalous heat," indicating that cold fusion was taking place.
There is also a link to a paper given at an LENR Workshop held at
Glenn in September 2011. However, when questioned, a Nasa spokesman
stated out that there was no Nasa cold fusion project, and no
budget for it. The work appears to be carried out on the side by
interested Nasa scientists.

Even more dramatically, on 16 January a video appeared on Nasa's
Technology Gateway site, essentially a marketplace for
commercialising technology developed at Nasa. This featured Dr
Joseph Zawodny talking about his "Method for Enhancement of Surface
Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate & Sustain LENR." In this Dr
Zawodny says the technology has the potential to provide home
heating and electricity, cleanly and without nuclear waste.

The video release was quickly followed by a long post on Dr
Zawodny's blog explaining that he was expressing his own views on LENR and not
those of Nasa. In response to the clamour from Rossi's fans, he
stressed that he was not yet convinced the E-Cat works: "I am
unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable
commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy."

Steven Krivit of New Energy Times used the Freedom of
Information Act to get details of more Nasa LENR presentations and
clearly there's quite a fan club there.

Cern
Meanwhile Cern is holding a colloquium on LENR, scheduled
for 22 March. This will be available live via webcast, and will
be given by Francesco Celani from the Italian National Institute of
Nuclear Physics.

Cern is of course a major bastion of mainstream science; a
search of Cern's site shows just eight papers on cold fusion
compared to over 8,000 on conventional hot fusion. The colloquium
seems like inviting a heretic to preach in a cathedral. A recent
presentation shows that Celani is a strong advocate for LENR, suggesting
that the challenge now is understanding exactly how it works.
(He also states that Rossi's claims, though not impossible, need
independent verification)

MIT
MIT, which played a key role in discrediting the original cold
fusion studies in 1989, might also be shifting its position a
little. This January for the first time there was a short course
called "Cold Fusion 101." This was taught by Peter Hagelstein, who
has been working on LENR for many years. According to a report in Cold
Fusion Times, the course included a working demonstration
of LENR showing measurable excess of heat.

Darpa Darpa, the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects
Agency, has been quietly pursuing LENR for some years. Its budget
plans for next year, released earlier this month, listed some
significant achievements: "Continued quantification of material
parameters that control degree of increase in excess heat
generation and life expectancy of power cells in collaboration with
the Italian Department of Energy. Established ability to extend
active heat generation time from minutes to 2.5 days for
pressure-activated power cells."

Or more likely, Rossi and Defkalion are scams to bilk hapless investors out of millions of dollars and Euros. It is shaping up like so many bad stories from the past. No working products ever came from Eestor, BLP, Mark Goldes's companies, dozens of Sterling Allan's stories, Carl Tilley, Steorn, Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto, Sniffex, and Firepower, to name a few. No products but lots of money spent and lost by investors.

maryyugo

Feb 27th 2012

In reply to maryyugo

Congratulations, a good fair article, with excellent reporting. (which is becoming very rare in US)Unlike maryyugo above, it is my opinion there is just too much evidence out there that says this is for real, there are just too many respected scientists telling us LENR works.

Bernie Koppenhofer

Feb 28th 2012

Once again I thank Wired for taking a balanced view of this story, as it has done for many years. This story clearly highlights that the "cold fusion" saga of the 21st Century clearly extends beyond the reaches of one man (Rossi) and in fact reaches to well-respected institutions in the United States and elsewhere, including INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics) and soon CERN.

NASA's involvement is indeed the most peculiar. Although a NASA web site clearly states that their scientists observed anomalous heat in "cold fusion" cells as far back as 1989, this information was kept under wraps until just recently. If this information had been known to the public, perhaps the names of Pons and Fleischmann and "cold fusion" itself would never have become the laughingstock that they have become. Still to this day, NASA's duplicity in the cold fusion story continues. The video released on a NASA web site clearly states that NASA scientists at NASA Langley Research Center are investigating LENR but NASA wants us to believe it is a side project being carried out by some of its scientists in their garages. What a load of poppycock. One of its scientists releases a 1000+ word blog post attempting to "clarify" a 2 minute video, somehow trying to insinuate that this is his pet project, and his alone...again contradicting the released video that states the technology is being actively pursued at NASA Langley Research Center by NASA scientists.

Four slide shows from a September of 2011 work shop held at NASA Glenn Research Center feature NASA scientists clearly indicating that their interest in this technology, with the presentation by Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell stating that the effect has proven to be real. Dr. Zawodny'a LENR patent has NASA listed as the assignee, meaning that if the patent is granted NASA will have control of the patent and the patent rights. Very curious indeed.

People keep clamoring for a demonstration that "cold fusion" is real, but a demonstration done in January of this year at the MIT workshop ran for days and documented energy gains of 10-14 times the input power and yet the media has chosen to totally ignore this story, even though one of MIT's professors (Dr. Peter Hagelstein) was there to document and verify the results. No, the experiment was nowhere near the magnitude claimed by Rossi but, so what, it provides proof of principle.

As I said at the outset, Wired is carrying the torch in regards to this story. You are the only ones that consistently report accurately on it, which has moved beyond the realm of Andrea Rossi and onto the grounds of some the most notable and respected institutions in the world. Keep up the good work Wired.

Cue the pathoskeps in 3...2..1.....

Ben

Feb 27th 2012

"No, the experiment was nowhere near the magnitude claimed by Rossi but, so what, it provides proof of principle."

A slight understatement. Rossi claims a million watts for six months at a time. Swartz's experiment, if you believe it, was a few milliwatts for minutes or a few hours. Nine orders of magnitude (a thousand million times) separate the claims of Rossi and Swartz in power, more than ten thousand million separates their energy claims.

Swartz reports mainly on a hard to read and harder to understand web site. His work is far from a proof of concept of LENR.

maryyugo

Feb 27th 2012

Hi David,

Good work. Just two important things you omitted that were substantial: There are two speakers slated for the CERN Colloquium. You may want to correct your omission of that fact. Second, Sterling Allen also has a business relationship with Rossi. It might be fair to your readers to disclose that to them.

Give me a call sometime. I'd like to explain to you the difference between cold fusion and LENR.

Indefatigable yours,Steven

Steven B. Krivit

Feb 27th 2012

In reply to Steven B. Krivit

Mr. Krivit:Right, you are going to explain to Mr. Hambling the difference between cold fusion and LENR with you sixth grade science degree.

Bernie Koppenhofer

Feb 28th 2012

In reply to Bernie Koppenhofer

I agree, Bernie, though knowledge of the meaning of the word 'fusion' helps also. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, assuming they exist, could in some cases involve fusion (parts joining together) or equally they might not. In the present context they do involve fusion. This claim that LENR and cold fusion are different is all about pushing a particular theory, not science.

Brian Josephson

Feb 29th 2012

In reply to Bernie Koppenhofer

Dr. Josephson: "is all about pushing a particular theory", I realized you were right when I heard Mr. Larsen talk about his theory. I would be interested to know your thoughts on Larsen's theory? Is he headed in the right direction? Feel free to use my email address, bbck7@hotmail.com.

Bernie Koppenhofer

Mar 10th 2012

A possible reason as to why CERN has invited Prof. Celani:

Celani reported the following interesting phenomenon: the Ni-Cu alloy that he uses in LENR experiments has a positive temperature coefficient of resistance. When the Ni-Cu alloy is loaded with hydrogen the temperature coefficient usually decreases slightly. Sometimes however it changes to a negative temperature coefficient of resistance. This is associated with excess heat production.

In plain English, sometimes the electrical conductivity of the material increases very significantly when loaded with hydrogen. The more it increases, the more excess heat is measured.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani%20Abstract.doc

Celani seems to have found a marker for excess heat production in LENR experiments.

AB

Feb 27th 2012

I just submitted a comment, however I would like to add to your NASA section of the article again. You accurately quoted Joe Zawodny clarifying his video with the statement

"I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy."

I myself have been following this story for the past year and have understood that to mean he is not supporting Andrea Rossi or Defkalion in their claims as he has not seen their devices demonstrated well enough.

I do think it should be noted to readers that he also said about LENR," I believe excess power has been demonstrated."on pagehttp://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/

He says he has not seen it controllable/viable as an energy source but he is convinced excess power has been demonstrated.

I think that point is important, as the quote in the article makes it sound like he does not believe in LENR.

I still loved the article and hope to see more on this subject.

kwhilborn

Feb 27th 2012

I just submitted a comment, however I would like to add to your NASA section of the article again. You accurately quoted Joe Zawodny clarifying his video with the statement

"I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy."

I myself have been following this story for the past year and have understood that to mean he is not supporting Andrea Rossi or Defkalion in their claims as he has not seen their devices demonstrated well enough.

I do think it should be noted to readers that he also said about LENR," I believe excess power has been demonstrated."
on page
http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/

He says he has not seen it controllable/viable as an energy source but he is convinced excess power has been demonstrated.

I think that point is important, as the quote in the article makes it sound like he does not believe in LENR.

I still loved the article and hope to see more on this subject.

kwhilborn

Feb 27th 2012

It is an error to state LENR provides free heating. Dr. Rossi stated his device has a COP of 6. This means that he still has to pay if he wants the unoccupied demonstration site (not "factory) continuously heated.

Andrew Ma

Feb 27th 2012

Both Rossi and National Instrument stated that Rossi "is" not a customer as of late Feb 2012. The phrasing in this article could be mistakenly interpreted as NI said Rossi was never a customer, which would be incorrect and confusing.

Andrew Ma

Feb 27th 2012

It was not obvious to me until Rossi confirmed that if someone can heat their home or factory using natural gas for 10 times cheaper than electricity, then it could be more cost efficient to do that rather than using E-Cat which is electrically driven with COP of 6. Just mentioned that because you said "free heating".

Andrew Ma

Feb 27th 2012

In reply to Andrew Ma

COP 6 is the minimum according to Rossi, Defkalion says at least 20. This is at an early stage of development, I guess coming version will be at a level where the cost of electricity is insignificant and/or the device will produce it's own electricity (combined heat/power).

Carmania

Feb 28th 2012

In reply to Andrew Ma

COP 6 is the minimum according to Rossi, Defkalion says at least 20. This is at an early stage of development, I guess coming version will be at a level where the cost of electricity is insignificant and/or the device will produce it's own electricity (combined heat/power).

Carmania

Feb 28th 2012

In reply to Andrew Ma

COP 6 is the minimum according to Rossi, Defkalion says at least 20. This is at an early stage of development, I guess coming version will be at a level where the cost of electricity is insignificant and/or the device will produce it's own electricity (combined heat/power).

Carmania

Feb 28th 2012

Yes; great article as it shows some heavy science is accepting LENR (not quite cold fusion but more of a construct new atoms and beta decay). This LENR is well worth some heavy interest as well.

Imagine replacing 600 million cars and trucks with smog free engines. Feel the deep fresh air in city centers. Imagine buying a nice big fast safe car that never requires fuel as it comes with a lifetime supply built in. Imagine starving countries could desalinate abundances of fresh water from the ocean for almost free energy costs. Imagine floating hotels as giant blimps make comebacks with cheap heat/helium. Imagine millions of products becoming cheaper as energy costs fade. Imagine renewed economies as every energy grid in the world changes.

Imagine nobody caring about oil ever again and how it might affect the middle east world views. The middle east may become friendlier (tolerant of western views) as they will need to trade products other than oil.

Imagine cruise ships that can go triple the speed, and booms in yachting when diesel prices are no longer relevant to travel. I want a big yacht that I can live in and travel fast in with unlimited power. I'd have water/power/fish foods. If I could grow some fruits and veggies on board I'd need no land at all. Many people may choose to live off the grid once it becomes feasible.

Imagine, Imagine. Imagine because it seems like this is very real. LENR appears to be very real, and it is the abilities to control it that seem to be in question more than LENR itself.

This article claims NASA has no budget for cold fusion? That may be true but does not make a lot of sense. Joe Zawodny (The same chap that appears in this NASA video) http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html

seems to be one of the top LENR researchers at NASA. He has blogged this comment here and in 2009 wrote'"I've been working on a special project at work. I can't talk about the subject just yet, but hopefully soon. Let's just say that it has the potential to change everything for just about everyone on the planet. I had the opportunity to present my work to management and it went exceptionally well. I have complete support for the next phase of the project. The events of the day are still soaking in and I wanted to capture the moment – here. This is really great news for everyone. Wish me well and I'll do my best for you"

Not only has Joe Zawodny put out that video, and that statement, but he has also filed a patent on behalf of NASA that is related to Heavy Electrons in the LENR process. Excuse caps (emphasis)... IF NASA IS NOT RESEARCHING LENR THEN WHY IS IT FILING LENR PATENTS. WOULDN'T THIS PATENT BE IN JOE ZAWODNYS NAME INSTEAD?

So if NASA is not involved then How come NASA is listed as owning the rights to this research (under assignee)?

Cold fusion might be the wrong term. It is probably true that NASA has no cold fusion budget as there is a side-effect of cold fusion research that is causing LENR. Instead of two items fusing together as is the definition of cold fusion it is more like we are creating another type of atom completely and when that new atom breaks (beta-decay) down it gives off a lot of heat. This reaction despite its name can be millions of times more powerful than a chemical reaction could possibly give, and temperatures could exceed 1400 degrees which would then melt the Nickel involved in the experiment. Controlling LENR is the problem.

16 entities (or more now) have confirmed LENR reactions using Nickel/Hydrogen and hundreds more using Deuterium. It is the newer Nickel/Hydrogen combination that Andrea Rossi and another company called Defkalion claim they can control. Andrea Rossi claims to control it by keeping the heat and reaction low, and Defkalion seems to rely on "bursts" of energy implying a start/stop method. Neither of these companiesability to control LENR have been 100% verified, but LENR itself seems to have been proven.

I enjoyed this article and found it to be well researched and am interested to see what transpires after March 22 LENR conference mentioned.

We also know famous philanthropist Sidney Kimmel just donated $5 500 000 towards Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research at The University of Missouri where LENR research was already being conducted. Hopefully they can explain some of what is still a mystery with that funding. It would be much nicer to see the automotive industry or governments allocate a few billion dollars towards this and get the ball rolling faster.

Great article. I just wish NASA was asked about LENR research more than cold fusion research. Maybe down the road?

kwhilborn

Feb 27th 2012

I think it would have been best to name the NASA spokesperson quoted, and follow up with specific questions about NASA's patent application and their multiple official web sites which state that they are performing ongoing work at Goddard and Langley.

James

Feb 28th 2012

Thank you for the balanced reporting. I have been following developments in this area since October 2011, around the time of an earlier article of yours. And I can say that the present article neither overstates nor understates the facts as I understand them. That is a fine achievement on such a polarized topic.

Eric

Feb 28th 2012

The CERN collo is a "non-technical" one, witch means that it hasn`t nothing to do with research work done there. The same goes for the cold fusion course held at MIT, which more or less was a privately held event.Your article seems to have a tendancy to overrate the degreee of involvement of these venerable institutions.

esmeraldas

Feb 28th 2012

In reply to esmeraldas

Well, the Bureaucracy at these fine institutions has been dragging its feet on LENR for 22 years. Interfering with 10's of millions of dollars in funding for hot fusion at the lab at MIT, or Billions per year at the peak in total, doesn't win you friends. The top executives of these institutions have made premature and strongly negative comments about Pons &amp; Fleishman and everyone who followed the trail. They want the truth to come out, just as soon as they retire. What is significant is that very respectable researchers at these institutions are on the trail. What their bosses think isn't really interesting. Peter Hagelstein wrote the Quantum Mechanics textbook. He is entitled to release an update with one extra term in one of the equations.

sue jones

Mar 7th 2012

Four days of supposed testing by Defkalion came and went and Defkalion never announced the names of the testers and did not publish any protocol for the tests, both things they promised to do *before* the testing started. They say only that unnamed Greek government officials from unnamed agencies did the testing. Isn't it odd that all Rossi's customers and all Defkalion's testers are anonymous? Isn't it odd everyone is so shy? Isn't it strange that this development is exactly what critic billionaire Dick Smith predicted?